Tennessee Senate Bill SB2415

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8; Title 9; Title 13; Title 14; Title 49; Title 54; Title 55; Title 58; Title 64; Title 65; Title 66; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to emergency management.

Summary

SB2415 makes a narrow amendment to Tennessee’s emergency management law. Specifically, it changes one cross-reference in Tennessee Code Annotated § 58-2-116(a) by replacing the phrase “public works, land use and land use planning” with “public works, healthcare facilities, land use, and land use planning.” The bill does not create a new program or funding mechanism; instead, it expands the listed subject areas to explicitly include healthcare facilities within the emergency management context. Because the bill is limited to a single statutory substitution, its practical effect is to clarify that healthcare facilities are among the types of facilities or planning areas addressed under the referenced emergency management provision. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting the legislature’s view that the change should be implemented without delay.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 58-2-116(a), which is part of the state’s emergency management framework. By inserting “healthcare facilities” into the existing list, it broadens the statutory language governing emergency planning or related public works and land-use considerations to expressly include healthcare facilities. The change may affect state and local emergency management planning, public works coordination, and entities operating healthcare facilities, but it does not otherwise alter the structure of Title 58 or impose a new regulatory scheme.

Sentiment

There is little recorded debate or voting history available for SB2415, and no committee transcripts or vote counts are provided. Based on the bill’s limited, technical nature and the absence of recorded opposition, the overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable, with the measure likely viewed as a straightforward clarification or update to emergency management language.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. If any concern were to arise, it would likely center on whether explicitly naming healthcare facilities in emergency management law could expand planning obligations or administrative responsibilities for state, local, or facility operators. However, the bill text itself is narrowly drafted and the record provided does not show any expressed opposition.